11:46 amNS: Get a textbook on general relativity, and you will typically find a math textbook devoted mainly to Riemannian geometry. So by your reasoning, it actually isn’t about the structure of spacetime.

ppb: And the environment creates the information required for evolution to successfully locate a target how? Lots of environments lack the active information to conduct successful targeted searches.

I’m growing weary of these quibblings and thus shutting the comments off.

Weasel, as described c. 1986, may therefore plainly legitimately be interpreted as letter-by-letter partitioned, explicitly latched search. [Cf my highlighted excerpt from BW, and WmAD's remarks in his own thread and in the just published paper.]

...

Quote

On the whole, Weasel functions to create the false impression that functionally specific, complex information can be had on teh cheap though gradual cumulative selection. but the use of proximity-based targetted search shows that Weasel is riddled with active, purposeful information that undermines any legitimate capability to show what is triumphantly announced.

KF, the issue that I am addressing is purely and simply that Dawkins WEASEL algorithm does not specify nor require a latching mechanism and that apparent latching behaviour is simply an expected result when only observing the fittest member of each generation.

Latching, pseudo-latching, quasi-latching are all inventions of yours, they are distractions, red herrings, straw-men. Your inability to understand this simple point and deal with the issue ‘on its merits’ as you so like to claim, is breathtaking.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

well anyway BillB you have done it now. see if you can introduce pz's post yesterday about "bahamian govt wishes to outlaw marital rape". b/c we are not going to get anything else out of Gordon E Mullings we haven't seen before. over. and over. and over.

pushbutton tard

ETA at least he's got flair!!!!!

Quote

43BillB08/20/20095:47 amKF:

It has been demonstrated empirically time and again that latching is NOT REQUIRED in order for WEASEL to produce the results that you yourself display on your colourful pages. Why do you keep insisting that a mechanism that is unnecessary and never described actually exists?

Ignoring OBVIOUS AND COPIOUS evidence on this issue seems to be a particular talent of yours, combined with your usual rude accusations and appeals to moderators.

Please don’t reply with more of your veiled insults by pretending that this is all obfuscation and red herrings, IT IS NOT, it is simply a matter of FACT, I’ve even written my own weasel program in the past using Dawkins description and observed how the results look like latching is at work when no mechanism is present in the code. Many others have done the same and found the same results.

OUCH

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

(a) the most natural interpretation of Mr Dawkins’ actual words — cf the above excerpt from BW if you do not care to follow the link — is partitioned search and explicit latching. MORE TOT HE POINT, THEY SHOW THAT HE UNDERTOOK PROXIMITY-BASED TARGETTED SEARCH WITH REWARD OF NON-FUNCTIONALITY. (That is Weasel is fundamentally flawed and demonstrably rhetorically seriously misleading.)

(b) other readings are possible, and it is demonstrated — not just speculation — that with suitable filters and parameter tuning, Weasel programs can implicitly latch.

( c) on the balance of the evidence of statements, printed runs and whatnot, the published runs of 1986 seem to have implicitly latched.

(d) Quasi-patching with rare reversions is also possible.

(e) far from latching behaviour is also possible.

All of this I have stated, and as necessary, shown.

So, why are you re-stating what I have said, with emphases and wording that make it seem that I am in the wrong to say such? [You can write type d or e versions of Weasel to your heart's content. That will not change the natural reading of Mr Dawkins' words, circa 1986, and it will not change the fact that the runs he published at that time show behaviour that is best explained as latched. the issue is how. Explicit latching is the easiest way, but implicit quasi-latching is also possible. And, far-from latched versions of Weasel are irrelevant to the status as at 1986, INCLUDING the 1987 BBC Horizon videotaped runs.]

Please, recheck yourself on cognitive dissonance again. Recall, it its the same Dawkins who said that those who disagree with his evolutionary materialism — especially if they happen to be “Creationists” — are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.

Do I need to spell that out:

D-E-M-O-N-I-S-I-N-G

B-I-G-O-T-R-Y

GEM of TKI

Then follows up with

Quote

PS: Could you kindly provide us with a credible copy of the actual program or algorithm for the Weasel runs as published circa 1986? [If you cannot, given your declaration that >> Dawkins WEASEL algorithm does not specify nor require a latching mechanism and that apparent latching behaviour is simply an expected result when only observing the fittest member of each generation >> then my remarks above and in the again linked are doubly underscored.]

Um, every copy of the Blind Watchmaker comes with a "credible copy of the actual program or algorithm". Where do you suppose all those people who've recreated it using the description in the book got the information from Gordon?Link

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

kairosfocus: Could you kindly provide us with a credible copy of the actual program or algorithm for the Weasel runs as published circa 1986?

Dawkins states the algorithm in his book, The Blind Watchmaker.

Dawkins: "The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL."

Weasel doesn't latch letters. It's selection on the level of the phrase.

The team programmed small, wheeled robots with the goal of finding food: each robot received more points the longer it stayed close to "food" (signified by a light colored ring on the floor) and lost points when it was close to "poison" (a dark-colored ring). Each robot could also flash a blue light that other robots could detect with their cameras.

Behaviours evolving? Not possible! Must be ID!

Quote

By the 50th generation, some eventually learned to not flash their blue light as much when they were near the food so as to not draw the attention of other robots, according to the researchers. After a few hundred generations, the majority of the robots never flashed light when they were near the food. The robots also evolved to become either highly attracted to, slightly attracted to, or repelled by the light.

I wonder what the FSCI value for the neural networks were....

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

kairosfocus: Could you kindly provide us with a credible copy of the actual program or algorithm for the Weasel runs as published circa 1986?

Dawkins states the algorithm in his book, The Blind Watchmaker.

Dawkins: "The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL."

Weasel doesn't latch letters. It's selection on the level of the phrase.

It's also clear from this video of Dawkins running the program. Ironically, Dembski himself posted the video back in March.

-

Added note about Dembski. Xposted to Uncommon Descent.

I don't think Gordon Mullings gives a rats derriere about the Dawkins concept nor indeed what a phrase is.

It would be more fun just to take a set of his trade mark phrases and run 2 tests the Dawkins GA and a simulation of 10,000 monkeys bit blasting and see which suceeds.

KF is just one of Dembski's wethers* and asking him now to understand the GA concept and it's power to navigate a problem space in a previously unmapped territory with successful outcomes we define because we can but more importantly for cry babies like Dembski make money.

Now after Dembski actually scurried with the "latch" to his vanity press will find any rat catcher employed interminably delatching KF's head from faulty logic traps only to have him immediatly put his head back in.

You really are scraping the barrel now – I’ll do my best to turn the other cheek to your insults and slurs – is this an example of your moral superiority at work? If in doubt, point and shout. I hope you are enjoying the privilege of being able to hurl abuse at people without the risk of being moderated by Clive.

lolololol clive,baby you are a sad sack of it

expect this to disappear

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

You need louder and more reliable drums. Darwinian evolution is an ideology, unsupported by science. No one on this site has ever provided a shred of evidence that naturalistic, unplanned forces can create biodiversity. Would you like to break precedence and assume the burden of that task?

neeneeneeneeneeneer i can't hear you burt i have bananas in my ears

i've been thinking about socking a puppet over there that purports to be interested in ID applications to ecology. they have ignored ecology. PM me if you are interested in getting some talking points together.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Another "This could be an interesting ID prediction" from the house of Tard. When are these fuckwit's going to catch on, How does ID predict what this tosser is talking about. Is he saying that ID posits that all DNA is functional (because_God_would_have_done_it_that_way_but_we_are_not_supposed _to_talk_about_that_yet) therefore ID predicts.... BTW a question I'd love to see on UD but can't be arsed to make my own sock. If my great Aunt thought you could tell someone’s future by reading their tea leaves, Does that mean it contains information? I want GEM of Tard to tell me does the tea have FSCI if I believe her? Can he calculate it and what happens to the information, if I stop believing ? Maybe it’s like a quantum wave form, all states exist until we determine that it’s bull shit.

--------------"Proteins are not produced by a chemical reaction, they are manufactured by machinery that is programmed through a base-four digital code. " Frilly Gilly on LIfe

Which simply reveals that, after all this time, you still don't understand "evolutionary thinking".

Quote

jerry: ... since once something is selected it is unlikely to unselected and not disappear so easily.

Latching means there is *no* chance a trait will disappear.

-Not Xposted to Uncommon Descent, because it never shows up anyway.

Didn't David Kellogg show the UDiots a website where someone went through the weasel section of The Blind Watchmaker sentence-by-sentence to show just how wrong the whole latching argument is the last time they had this discussion (sorry, no link, my Google-Fu is acting up today)?

Of course, they could just read the actual text themselves, if they could get over their fear of actually learning something.

Which simply reveals that, after all this time, you still don't understand "evolutionary thinking".

Quote

jerry: ... since once something is selected it is unlikely to unselected and not disappear so easily.

Latching means there is *no* chance a trait will disappear.

-Not Xposted to Uncommon Descent, because it never shows up anyway.

Didn't David Kellogg show the UDiots a website where someone went through the weasel section of The Blind Watchmaker sentence-by-sentence to show just how wrong the whole latching argument is the last time they had this discussion (sorry, no link, my Google-Fu is acting up today)?

Of course, they could just read the actual text themselves, if they could get over their fear of actually learning something.

Incidentally, neither Dembski nor Marks have any excuse for their mischaracterization of Dr. Dawkins' work. Wesley Elsberry informed Dembski of the issue back in 2000. Marks has to have known since the date of that post, October of 2007, at the latest.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

clearly Mr Patrick May has not wasted his time in the latrine trenches with the rest of the IDiots. either that or he is just a nicer person. if i weren't fascinated by stupid people I would have no use for UD

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

That gave me enough to get to the exchange I was remembering where Gordon refused to read past the first paragraph because he thought it said "IDiots" when in fact it says "IDCists". Apparently his reading comprehension is . . . consistent.

I’ve had a thought somewhat along the lines of the OP. Much of what has been proposed as junk DNA involves redundant or repetitive nucleotide sequences. Computer programs often use repetitive or iterative code (for example, for(), do(), and while() loops), the number of iterations of which are either specified or controlled by other code.

Er, and now what Gil? I think you forgot the next paragraph where you note how you'd go about testing that, what any potential results would indicate and all that other fancy stuff generally falling under "work" rather then "armchair scientist".

And anyway, in a computer program you can have a loop that runs 1000 times and you don't need 1000 loops in the source code. You just use a counter. So if junk DNA has lots of repetitive section then it's exactly unlike a computer program in that regard. So WTF Gil, did you think about that one for all of a second?

Gil, Jerry and KF are certainly much better in weaseling than Double-Doc-D. Have a look here to see what weaseling does to onlookers.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

You have set yourself up as an expert on this so I have a suggestion. Namely, that you take your insight to the journals that have published his articles and publish a letter or article telling the world what you know and that you claim Dembski is lying. Lying would be the appropriate term if “his points are false as a simple matter of fact.”

So step up and back your accusations. Otherwise there is a religious expression that applies.

careful jerry, that is gonna happen and d-d-d-d-d-d-d-dr dembski ain't gonna like it.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

You have set yourself up as an expert on this so I have a suggestion. Namely, that you take your insight to the journals that have published his articles and publish a letter or article telling the world what you know and that you claim Dembski is lying. Lying would be the appropriate term if “his points are false as a simple matter of fact.”

So step up and back your accusations. Otherwise there is a religious expression that applies.

careful jerry, that is gonna happen and d-d-d-d-d-d-d-dr dembski ain't gonna like it.

With all due respect, Mr. Erasmus, sir, it seems to me that Dembski will get more benefit from being a martyr than being the author of an article that will never be referenced by anyone outside of the ID cesspool.

Perhaps he left the misrepresentation of Dawkins work in on purpose! (Okay, okay, I'll go sit in the corner with my tinfoil hat now.)

hey maya nice hat! check mine out, it has an inscription on the band. you have to squint to see it.

since i think that the probability that dembski = clive,baby is much greater than .5 and also I suspect that several past 'moderators' and 'administrators' and posters have been dembski puppets I am the perfect person to entertain your idea.

we know he knows.

what we don't know is why he hasn't acted like he knows.

i offer that your suggestion appeals to what we know about dembski, i.e. his petty disregard for facts and shallow narcissistic emotional responses to what he perceives as a personal insult (when infact it may simply be, as in this case, that he is in error). yea, it is in line with his character as we know it, but there is a crucial detail missing from the explanatory narrative account of his motive, namely, how will this get him back into the Baylor cafeteria?

figure THAT out and you have an airtight case!

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

since i think that the probability that dembski = clive,baby is much greater than .5 and also I suspect that several past 'moderators' and 'administrators' and posters have been dembski puppets I am the perfect person to entertain your idea.

Latest blog poster is Niwrad. Darwin backwards. How imaginative.

They could have at least used an anagram!

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings